User:Aliciaag93/sandbox

Diagram for Proxemics

Example Diagram for a diagram - putting information within each of the four sections explaining which each one of them mean, so that it is easier for others to understand and read.

Proxemics and kinesics of expectancy violations theory

The next step of the Nonverbal Expectancy Violation model deals with the idea of Proxemics and Kinesics. This part of the theory explains the notion of “Personal space” and our reactions to other who seem to “violate” our sense of personal space. What we define as personal space, however, varies from culture to culture, and person to person. The “success” or “failure” of violations are linked to perceived attraction, credibility, influence and involvement. The context and purpose of interaction are relevant, as are the communicator characteristics of gender, relationships, status, social class, ethnicity and culture. When it comes to different interactions between people, what each person expects out of the interaction will influence their individual willingness to risk violation. If a person feels comfortable in a situation, they are more likely to risk violation, and in turn will be rewarded for it.

Introduced by Edward Hall in 1966, Proxemics deals with the amount of distance between people as they interact with one another. Based on how close people are during interaction, can be an indication of what type of relationship the people involved have.

There are 4 different personal zones defined by Hall. These zones include:

1. Intimate Space: (0-18 inches) - This distance is for close, intimate encounters. Normally family, close friends, lovers, or pets. People will normally share a unique level of comfort from one another.
2. Personal space: (18 inches – 4 feet) - Reserved for conversations with friends, associates, and group discussions. The personal space will give each person more space compared with the intimate distance, it is still close to each other so it could involve touching one another.
3. Social Space: (4–10 feet) - This space is reserved for strangers, newly formed groups, and new acquaintances you may have just met. Within this section people generally do not engage physically with one another.
4. Public Space: (10 feet to infinity) - Reserved for a public setting with large audiences, speeches, and theaters.

Many different cultures are influenced by Proxemics in different ways and respond differently to the same situation. In some cultures they can greet each other with a kiss on the cheek which is close contact engagement with someone which is the intimate stage of proxemics. On the other hand some cultures prefer greeting each other with a handshake, which is some physical contact but also keeping space between each other which is shown as the personal level. .

Common expectancy violations in close relationships

It is important to note that EVT can apply to both non-relational interaction and close relationships. In 1998, more than twenty years after the theory was first published, Afifi and Metts conducted several studies to catalog the types of expectancy violations commonly found in close relationships. They asked people in friendships and romantic relationships to think about the last time their friend or partner did or said something unexpected. They emphasized that the unexpected event could be either positive or negative. Participants reported on events that had occurred, on average, five days earlier, suggesting that unexpected behaviors happen often in relationships. Some of the behaviors reported were relatively mundane, and others were quite serious. The outcome of the list was a list of nine general categories of expectation violations that commonly occur in relationships.

Support or confirmation is an act that provides social support in a particular time of need, such as sitting with a friend who is sick.

Criticism or accusation is critical of the receiver and accuse the individual of an offense. These are violations because they are accusations not expected.

Relationship intensification or escalation intensifies the commitment of the communicator. For instance, saying “I love you,” signifies a deepening of a romantic relationship.

Relationship de-escalation does the opposite. An example might be spending more time apart.

Relational transgressions are violations of the perceived rules of the relationship. Examples include having an affair, deception, or being disloyal.

Acts of devotion are unexpected overtures that imply specialness in the relationship. Buying flowers for no particular occasion falls into this category.

Acts of disregard show that the partner is unimportant.

Gestures of inclusion are actions that show an unexpected interest in having the other included in special activities or life. Examples include invitations to spend a special holiday with someone or disclosure of personal information, or inviting the partner to meet one’s family.

Uncharacteristic relational behavior is unexpected action that is not consistent with the partner’s perception of the relationship. A common example is one member of an opposite-sex friendship demanding a romantic relationship of the other.

Afifi and Metts later collapsed the support or confirmation category into acts of devotion and included another category, uncharacteristic social behavior. These are acts that aren’t relational but are unexpected, such as a quiet person raising his or her voice.

The theory in new media age

As new media technology developing, people have more choices of receiving and sharing information. Since EVT focuses more on the nonverbal communication process, how does it be applied to new media age can be an interesting issue.

The popularity of computer-mediated communication (CMC) as means of conducting task-oriented and socially oriented interactions is evidenced in its ability to fulfill many of the same functions as other more traditional forms of interaction, especially face-to-face (FtF) interaction. Participants evaluated the social information more positively and uncertainty-reducing following short-term online associations but more negatively and uncertainty-provoking following long-term ones compared to remaining online.

In social media like Facebook, people are connected with friends and sometimes strangers. In this case, the expectancy violation can be conducted by different behaviors between strong ties and weak ties. An expectancy violation is defined as an incongruity between a profile's intended audience and its expected audience. Norms violation on Facebook can include too many status updates, overly emotional status updates or Wall posts, heated interactions, fights, and name calling through Facebook’s public features and being tagged on posts or pictures that might reflect negatively on an individual.

A 2008 study of the top 500 US colleges by Kaplan found that 10% of admissions offices checked applicants’ SNS profiles, and 38% of those saw information that negatively impacted the applicants’ prospects for admission (Hechinger, 2008). Recently, a college student was cited for underage drinking after campus police found pictures on Facebook of student holding a beer.

Unlike FtF communication, CMC allows people to pretend to be connected with person who violate their expectancy by ignoring violations or filterring news feed. Meanwhile, people can also cut the connection completely with someone who is not important by deleting friends when serious violation occurs. A confrontation is much more likely for close friends than for acquaintances, and compensation is much more likely for acquaintances, a finding in contrast to the typical EVT predictions. Also, EVT on the Internet environment is strongly related to online privacy issue.